Urban Sprawl, Which Large City Defines It?

[Topher1]

It seems a lot of people here have BIG misconceptions about LA. One of the prime definitions of sprawl is "low density, car dependent development, far from the city core." What people seem to forget about LA, is that it is the DENSEST UA in the US and Canada. LA sprawl and Atlanta/Charlotte sprawl are 2 completely different animals... Most of LA's exurbs have higher population densities than the inner cities in many of our beloved southern cities.

Some numbers:

- LA UA - Population: 11,789,487; Density: 7068.3

- NYC UA - Population: 17,799,861; Density: 5309.3

- Atlanta UA - Population: 3,499,840; Density: 1783.3

Just judging by those numbers, it should be very clear that LA's sprawl can in no way be compared to Atlanta's. LA sprawls because it has no more land to build on. It's built up and built densely. It's still car-centric, but not on the scale of most sunbelt cities. Atlanta sprawls with no regards to undeveloped land between the sprawl and the core. Take a plane flight over both cities. The wasted space in Atlanta between subdivisions is sickening, while it's clear that LA has made the most of their land.

I personally hate LA, but I can't stand to see people spouting out flames about a city without any regard to facts. Here's some facts (mixed with some personal experience).

- Urban core is growing very slowly or even losing population.

As stated earlier, LA's urban core is growing quite rapidly; +100K/year. LA led the nation in new multi-family housing permits in the last year.

-Fixed Rail transit is either inadequate or non-existant and not being expanded

LA's HRT sucks... But it is expanding (slowly). And the bus fleet is quite top notch.

-Suburbs continue to sprawl unchecked away from core.

Most of LA is pretty well built out. The city is densifying extremely rapidly. Riverside/San Bernadino is sprawling like crazy, but that is a seperate MSA that just happens to touch LA.

-Racial divides are a big problem and impede change

Can't refute this one.

-Downtown housing is either for very poor or very well off, middle class need not apply.

Not the case, downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods are quite mixed.

-Crime rates

Can't refute this one either.

It's obvious that LA doesn't belong in this discussion, based on these criteria (or Chicago for that matter).

[doady]

That picture of Toronto makes it look very bad, but despite the superhighway, Toronto has a very high transit ridership (4x transit ridership than that of Los Angelea), and the picture does sort of suggest that there are many apartment buildings in suburban areas of Toronto. "Towers-in-a-park" or "commie-blocks" they are called, and they are a typical suburban development in most Canadian metros, and they are usually located near malls. Every mall in the Toronto area has at least a few commie-blocks. I could be wrong but there does not seem to be as much of this type of development in the suburbs of the States.

[95-Souf]

Ok,.. wait a minute,... I did hear Los Angeles right,.. !!!!!!! and can somebody tell me why South Florida is not on the list, you have some of the worst urban sprawl in the country in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties..... but I could understand Atlanta Metro being apart of that list......

[KRC]

Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth need to be on the list.

[GRS328]

LA does not meet the criteria put forth at the beginning of this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case, I think the criteria is flawed. If the criteia suggests Chicago is more sprawled than LA, then the criteria should be rexamined, cuz something's not right about that. I grew up in a Chicago suburb, and I had access to CTA(yellow line & purple lines & buses) and Metra. I would agree with Topher, neither really belong on the list.

While it's away from the poll choices, I would have to say the entire state of Florida defines sprawl... 4th largest population in the US (soon to be 3rd), not a single city with a population greater than 1 million, mediocre transportation at best. As the boards indicate, a lot is changing for the better in South FL, Orlando, Jax and even Tampa... but seemingly irreparable damage has already been done there when you look at just how un-dense so much of it is...

[Brickell]

Ok,.. wait a minute,... I did hear Los Angeles right,.. !!!!!!!    and can somebody tell me why South Florida is not on the list,  you have some of the worst urban sprawl in the country in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.....  but I could understand Atlanta Metro being apart of that list......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll have to disagree. South Florida simply doesn't have the room to sprawl the way that an Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix or even Chicago and Philly can. The only thing bad about the sprawl here is the relative newness of it. There are very few old town centers to build around. This leaves an absence of sense of place in some parts, but it'd dense.

[monsoon]

Actually Chicago does meet all of the criteria. 2/3rd's of the metro live in suburban locales, the city and county are losing population, Chicago does suffer from extreme racial divides, the downtown transit system is not being expanded, housing exists in the city only for the poor or very well off, and crime is a big problem in Chicago.

The biggest difference between Chicago and the others on the list is simply that it is much larger and that gives the impression the area is doing well. But the two biggest issues, population loss in the core and unchecked growth of the suburbs indicate that sprawl is a big problem there. Maybe, in relative terms, the worst in the USA. (again because of its size)

[Topher1]

In that case, I think the criteria is flawed.  If the criteia suggests Chicago is more sprawled than LA, then the criteria should be rexamined, cuz something's not right about that.  I grew up in a Chicago suburb, and I had access to CTA(yellow line & purple lines & buses) and Metra.  I would agree with Topher, neither really belong on the list. 

While it's away from the poll choices, I would have to say the entire state of Florida defines sprawl... 4th largest population in the US (soon to be 3rd), not a single city with a population greater than 1 million, mediocre transportation at best.  As the boards indicate, a lot is changing for the better in South FL, Orlando, Jax and even Tampa... but seemingly irreparable damage has already been done there when you look at just how un-dense so much of it is...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only criteria that Chicago meets is the unchecked sprawl in the suburbs, since the outer suburbs are as bad as you'd find anywhere, and extremely plentiful. The city itself is in great shape; the best it's been in years.

As far as Florida is concerned, the city population numbers are quite useless. Differences in areas of city limits throughout different states make comparing cities based on city limits populations worthless. Just within Florida, the city limits range from enormous, like Jacksonville (like 700ish sq. miles) to tiny, like Miami (36 sq. miles). Of course Miami isn't going to have a population of 1 million. Now if our city limits were the size of, say, Houston (600 sq.miles)... well that'd be a different story. Miami would easily surpass 1 million with that much land to build on. I'm sure that if someone were to add up the population of the 600 square miles surrounding Miami, the population would come close to 3 million. There are 5 cities (3 major) in Dade county alone with population densities in the 10,000 range: Miami, Hialeah, Miami Beach, Aventura, Sunny Isles.

Even with the perception as a sprawl state, Florida's metros still stack up quite nicely with the other metros of the south. More lists:

Miami UA: Population: 4,919,036; Density: 4407.4

Orlando UA: Population: 1,157,431; Density: 2554.0

Tampa UA: Population: 2,062,339; Density: 2570.6

Jacksonville UA: Population: 882,295; Density: 2149.2

Atlanta UA: Population: 3,499,840; Density: 1783.3

Charlotte UA: Population: 758,927; Density: 1745.0

Nashville UA: Population: 749,935; Density: 1740.9

Birmingham UA: Population: 663615; Density: 1692.5

There's no question that Florida sprawls horribly, but comparing Florida's cities to the other biggest southern cities, it's obvious whose sprawl is worse.

[95-Souf]

As far as Florida is concerned, the city population numbers are quite useless. Differences in areas of city limits throughout different states make comparing cities based on city limits populations worthless. Just within Florida, the city limits range from enormous, like Jacksonville (like 700ish sq. miles) to tiny, like Miami (36 sq. miles). Of course Miami isn't going to have a population of 1 million. Now if our city limits were the size of, say, Houston (600 sq.miles)... well that'd be a different story. Miami would easily surpass 1 million with that much land to build on. I'm sure that if someone were to add up the population of the 600 square miles surrounding Miami, the population would come close to 3 million. There are 5 cities (3 major) in Dade county alone with population densities in the 10,000 range: Miami, Hialeah, Miami Beach, Aventura, Sunny Isles.

It's good to know that at least somebody recognizes that comparing US cities by population with in city limits are meaningless... Good example with the cities of Miami, Jacksonville and Houston.

Another good example would be St. Louis: 2,603,607 in the Metro Area

1,016,315 in St. Louis County

and only 348,189 in the city proper of St. Louis

Atlanta can also argue this fact as well with 416,474 in the city of Atlanta and 4,247,981 in the metro. (2000 census)

[Charleston native]

Referring to mentions of LA, I have to admit that I am surprised that LA is not considered one of the biggest areas of sprawl. Like someone here mentioned earlier, the area of LA goes from Palm Springs to Santa Barbara. That is over 100 miles of neighborhoods, car dealerships, stores, restaurants, and freeways!!

One thing that no one has mentioned which probably saves LA from the title of "Sprawl City, USA" to some extent is its road system. LA's streets are mostly standard grids throughout the ENTIRE area. Most of them either run north and south or east and west. The grid system actually helps density because there are more routes to get from one place to another. Also, land in LA for a house is very small. Yards are on average 1/4 acre (I think), and that enhances density with more houses per square mile. Toss that in with many different cities in the area with their own retail areas (which have every shop on the planet!) and you've got a virtual "urbanized cluster".

Atlanta, on the other hand, has roads which foster more traffic problems and widespread sprawl. There is a grid DT, but then major streets and roads turn every direction which causes the "spaghetti roads" effect, where development occurs which ever direction the street or highway goes. This lack of a grid system limits the amount of ways a car can get to a destination throughout the different communities.

[Martinman]

Actually Chicago does meet all of the criteria.  2/3rd's of the metro live in suburban locales, the city and county are losing population, Chicago does suffer from extreme racial divides, the downtown transit system is not being expanded, housing exists in the city only for the poor or very well off, and crime is a big problem in Chicago. 

The biggest difference between Chicago and the others on the list is simply that it is much larger and that gives the impression the area is doing well.  But the two biggest issues, population loss in the core and unchecked growth of the suburbs indicate that sprawl is a big problem there.  Maybe, in relative terms, the worst in the USA.  (again because of its size)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with this criteria is that most of them do not determine whether or not there is sprawl in a metro area. Detroit's metro lost population from 1990 to 2000 census so of course the city wasn't fast growing and there would be little need to expand the transit system. And even if it was a fast growing city, such as LA gaining 100k, it doesn't mean that there isn't sprawl type growth 50 miles from the city. Chicago has one of the most extensive transit systems in the country. Its sprawl is not because of inadequate transit but the simple fact that its an area of what? 8 million people.

[kermag]

Have none of you guys ever been to Dallas-Ft. Worth. It takes almost 2 hours on the freeway at 65 mph to get from the eastern suburbs of Forney/Mesquite to the western suburbs west of Fort Worth. From north to south it takes an hour and a half from Waxahachie to Denton. Atlanta doesn't come close to this, Los Angeles is worse but has many more than Dallas' 5 1/2 million people. Detroit is small in comparison in terms of sprawl. Dallas and Ft. Worth have 2 million people compared to 3.5 million living in the burbs, but these two cities are huge in size, dwarfing Detroit and Atlanta proper. Dallas and Ft.Worth, themselves are examples of sprawl with huge areas of empty space in between developments.

[Chemmie]

Atlanta.

But nobody has mentioned D.C. , which isn't too far behind for the same reasons as Atlanta. Not to mention Baltimore being so close and adding to the suburb problems.

I've lived in Chicago, Atlanta, D.C., Philly and Orlando. Orlando is spreading out like a weed but they are trying their damndest to build more dense areas. It seems to be working, the inner city is booming. Philly is the same it has been for 100 years. Chicago survives on thier transit system, it's fantastic. Atlanta, which I moved from in January (back to Orlando for the second time) is far and away the worst. Now, I haven't been to Detroit, but I can't imagine anything being worse on any of those scales. I loved Atlanta, but it could be one of the best in the world if they would just fix a few things. And by continuing to raise inner city taxes, they won't accomplish anything.

[ryancs]

Let's think of it this way:

I saw on another post that Atlanta has 700,000 people inside the Perimeter. The metro is 4.7 million, so 4 million people live outside of the Perimeter which is about 10 miles in radius from downtown. Also, the Atlanta metro stretches 110 miles across. Come on...no brainer - it is Atlanta.

Not a great contest to win, but does give me plenty of yard to mow, LOL.

[nashvol85]

When I think of sprawl, I think of people moving to pockets of rural land 20-30 miles away and building subdivisions and later on---strip malls and other low density developement. Nashville certainly suffers from this problem, but not really all of the others that monsoon listed...

Urban core is growing very slowly or even losing population.

Well...matter of who you ask. From '90-'00, Davidson county grew by 11% (60,000 people), but since '00, the census says that we have only gained about 2,000 people, but the metro estimates say we have grown by a healthy 25,000.

Fixed Rail transit is either inadequate or non-existant and not being expanded

Uh...we're working on it...I think. LOL

Suburbs continue to sprawl unchecked away from core.

You bet yer ass they are.

Racial divides are a big problem and impede change

Not in the city...actually, Nashville was ranked 3rd in % of residents living on black-white integrated blocks (Va Beach was 1st, Charlotte 2nd, Nashville 3rd, Jacksonville 4th, St. Louis 5th). There is somewhat of a divide out in the suburbs, but I don't think it's a major problem.

Downtown housing is either for very poor or very well off, middle class need not apply.

Downtown is finally starting to see some developement happen residentially. There are measures being taken to make sure that the middle class will be able to afford some of these places. MHDA makes sure that a certain % of the units are at a certain level of what the average person in the city can afford. We'll have to see about this when DT is more developed.

Crime rates

Down. Still high, but violent crime seems to be on a downward trend.

[pwright1]

The Washington D.C. area has to be near the top. I lived work and commuted their and it is the worst. Commuting times are long, traffic is the worst. The subway serves DC, but most people in the area commute from suburb to suburb which makes traffic and growing patterns the absolute worst. The sprawl is endless.

[Chemmie]

The Washington D.C. area has to be near the top.  I lived work and commuted their and it is the worst.  Commuting times are long, traffic is the worst.  The subway serves DC, but most people in the area commute from suburb to suburb which makes traffic and growing patterns the absolute worst.  The sprawl is endless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what I said. I know years ago the D.C. metro area had almost made it's way down to Quantico, VA. My parents live in Lexington Park, MD which is on the Chesapeak Bay and many of their neighbors commute the hour and a half into D.C. Soon, the entire Richmond, D.C. and Baltimore corridor is going to be a huge cluster-F of sprawl.

[ironchapman]

I think Atlanta has the worst.

Fortunately, some people have wiened up and moved from the exurbs to the inner suburbs or the city itself. We grew too far, too fast. At least we've realized this now. Maybe we can do something about it now.

[Martinman]

Let's think of it this way:

Atlanta has 700,000 people inside the Perimeter.  The metro is 4.7 million, so 4 million people live outside of the Perimeter which is about 10 miles in radius from downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point. I never thought about it that way.

Fortunately this central area is seeing strong growth and it will be interesting to see how much it has grown at the next census.

[SouthJersey7]

Good point.  I never thought about it that way.

Fortunately this central area is seeing strong growth and it will be interesting to see how much it has grown at the next census.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ATL should annex everything up to the beltline.

[teshadoh]

ATL should annex everything up to the beltline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everything along the Beltline is in the city - you are thinking of the Perimeter (I-285).

[marcelo]

The UNO says the three biggest overbuilt areas of the world are

1) Tokyo

2) Los Angeles

3) S

[hudkina]

If Miami expanded its borders to encompass 600 sq. mi. it would have over 3.5 million people. And that's counting only Miami-Dade and Broward counties. If you added Palm Beach county into the mix the 600 sq. mi. "city" would encompass 3.8 million. That's 76% of the entire metro. If you expanded Atlanta's boundaries to encompass 600 sq. mi. it would only have about 1.9 million people. That's only 44% of Atlanta's metro population. Detroit's 600 sq. mi. "city" would have 3.0 million people, or about 66% of its metro area. Phoenix would have about 2.6 million, or about 81% of its MSA. And Las Vegas would have 1.3 million or a whopping 97% of its Metro.

[monsoon]

That is a very good observation hudkina. Miami is not appreciated for its density.

[monsoon]

This article appeared on UrbanPlanet's portal. Maybe it puts the problem in a new light

The Height of Foolishness: Sprawl Without Growth